ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
2014-67 = 1947
add in gestation
53 straight months of job creation, longest streak ever
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
add in gestation
H.M. Murdoch
Well-Known Member
It seems that many liberals are abandoning Obama now. CNN (i.e. liberal) polls show that Mitt Romney would kick Obama's ass if the election were held today (old news I know).
Hell, every president does good things, and things that don't turn out so well. The mistakes we ordinary citizens make are to try and defend "our" president, even when he is making mistakes. Show me someone who supports every move a president makes, and I'll show you a damn presidential homer, whose opinion is meaningless due to hero worship.
Hell, every president does good things, and things that don't turn out so well. The mistakes we ordinary citizens make are to try and defend "our" president, even when he is making mistakes. Show me someone who supports every move a president makes, and I'll show you a damn presidential homer, whose opinion is meaningless due to hero worship.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
thanks, obama!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
In fact, those who think that picking, supporting and voting for a President is adequate exercise of their duties of citizenship are sadly misinformed, although they can be forgiven for believing the blizzard of propaganda to the contrary.
He's been bought and paid for long before he gets anywhere near the corridors of REAL power- which is actually one of the sources of the problem; that money has been accepted as a substitute for suffrage.
Corporate money drowning the system in greed and corruption; of course, tell us something we don't know.
What I'm saying is that it's time to tell Congress, the Senate and the Executive branch of the Federal Government that their mandate is about to expire; they either reform, or we hire new representatives for ourselves.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
You and what army are going to accomplish this?
What I mean is by what mechanism of action can you "hire new reps" other than the regular voting methods in place?
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
I think a real life version of V from V for Vendetta could get the ball rolling for change and awareness in this country.
Sadly, the only way to get Americans to pay attention would be to hijack the broadcast of the super bowl and simultaneously detonate something spectacular with no loss of life.
Spend a year or so assassinating corrupt people in government, media, and law enforcement while highlighting their corruption prior to and just after their demise.
Then on election day, elect a new class of congressmen and blow up the capital building.
NEW AMERICA! !!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's an example of government euphemism. Private sector hardly exists in the real sense of the word "private".
If a job or business requires a license, permit etc. or is forced to abide by some level of extortionist extraction by the nanny state it is not a "private sector" job.
Government restrictions create barriers to entry and stifle real job creation. Now go shit on a floor and create some janitor jobs.
ASMALLVOICE
Well-Known Member
I figured this to be somewhere around ub's level of government understanding.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'd suggest you start by reading the Articles of the Constitution of the United States in their entirety.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Is there a particular part which answers the question?
Is there a similar mechanism in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Specifically, the right of the States to convene a Constitutional Congress at any time two thirds shall vote to have one. It almost happened in the 70's over women's rights- Repubs were on the wrong side of that one too, btw- and the Feds basically passed the Equal Rights Amendment under its threat.
I'm doubtful that could happen this time, because the same uber rich who own and operate the Federal Gov't generally started with local power bases and worked their way up.
If they make all the money and then say money is what gets access to power, I'd say we have been disenfranchised.
Wouldn't you?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Thank you. That was the kind of answer I desired; one from an informed perspective. I actually have some vague memories of that period...just fleeting images, though.
And there's the rub. It is a hollow threat to "replace" reps if the procedure to do so is already heavily biased against its success. We have similar issues with "recall" of MLAs at the provincial level:
Recall is a process that allows registered voters to petition for the removal of a Member of the Legislative Assembly between elections.
Any registered voter can apply to have a petition issued for the recall of their MLA (the elected Member representing their electoral district in the Legislative Assembly). A registered voter who wants to start a recall petition must obtain an application form from the Chief Electoral Officer. The completed application form must be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer with a non-refundable processing fee of $50 and include a statement of 200 words or less of why, in the opinion of the applicant, the Member should be recalled. A Member cannot be recalled during the first 18 months after their election.
If the application is complete and meets the requirements of the Recall and Initiative Act, a petition is issued to the applicant (called a “proponent”) within seven days. The proponent then has 60 days to collect signatures from more than 40% of the voters who were registered to vote in the Member’s electoral district in the last election, and who are currently registered as voters in B.C. The proponent may be helped by volunteers when canvassing for signatures.
When all the signed petition sheets are submitted, the Chief Electoral Officer has 42 days to verify that enough eligible individuals have signed the petition. If enough valid signatures are on the petition, and the financing rules have been met by the proponent, the Member ceases to hold office and a by-election must be called within 90 days. A recalled Member can run as a candidate in the by-election.
http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/referenda-recall-initiative/recall/
That's why nothing happens in Canada unless there is a scandal.
Abso-fuckin-lutely! Citizens United seems like a good place to start in the revolution. Can the Constitution be used to fight that?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
YES. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say money and free speech are the same. In fact, it separated the two repeatedly, one reason Mr. Obama the Constitutional scholar felt it necessary to publicly scold the Supreme Court for that vote, among others, during a recent State of the Union address.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm sorry you can't hire 8 year old boys for assfucking jobs. your buddy undertheice also called laws against pedophilia a form of tyranny.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I think we are open for suggestions at this point...
I'm trying to raise awareness of the .01% wealthiest in this country and the outsized influence they have over the rest of us.
If I get enough of the 99.99% of the rest of us thoroughly angry at how badly we've been ripped off and lied to over the last forty years, I believe we will effect change.
Here's what they think of supporting the country that allowed them to make their fortunes;
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/22/lawmakers-look-atclosinglargecorporatetaxloophole.html
Eleven bucks a day. It's an interesting statistic;
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/economy-bush-taxcutsgrowthjobs.html
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Lame duck... tax extender packages. (insert phallic joke here)
Other than that, it was a good article explaining the tax inversion problem in plain language.
It's interesting for imagining "what if", but unrealistic in the end. It has too much ceteris paribus dependence.
I calculated that enormous figure by comparing the average income Americans reported on their 2000 tax returns with what they reported each year for 2001 through 2012, adjusting for inflation and the growing population. Add up the income for 12 years and it turns out to be $6.6 trillion less than if we had maintained the prosperity of 2000 for a growing population.
He's turning a dynamic equation into a crude integer. That's sloppy argumentation, but it's an opinion piece, not a research paper
However, I see a reference to an earlier piece which is more interesting (and relevant):
America added 2.3 million jobs last year as the economy continued its too-slow recovery from the Great Recession. But it is where those jobs were concentrated that should garner attention. New county-level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reveal where jobs are increasing and decreasing. According to the numbers, job growth was concentrated in places that raised taxes, such as California, and in already high-tax areas, notably New York City.
...
Jobs are slowly but steadily concentrating in urban centers and their neighboring counties. A host of factors contribute to this, not the least changes in freight rail transportation and access to fiber optic networks that encourage rural manufacturers to relocate closer to urban centers.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/taxes-jobs-economicgrowthbls.html
The environment for labour itself is changing, again. Expand, Contract, Expand, Contract...That cyclic behaviour which permeates a modern capitalist economy is what makes it so difficult to hoist blanket statements such as "$11 a day" onto a pedestal for acceptance as fact, and that's precluding technological effects. While I do believe he is correct to lambast the Bush tax cuts for failure to materialize an economic paradise, the greater problem is in the general awareness of what taxes actually represent.
Ideally, they are a mechanism by which an economy can be micro-steered. Taxes are behavioral modifiers, after all. But when that intended mechanism is compromised--as in the tax inversion--it creates undue stress in other sectors as the National Accounts shuffle around trying to compensate.
And that's still at the Federal level, never mind State. That's who really loses by letting Corporate profits loose into the netherworld of ForEx and Debt-Securities, since those dollars inevitably wind up in one of those situations to generate income for shareholders.
At the same time, if those loopholes are closed, what are the geopolitical ramifications? The Isle of Jersey would be in a pinch, eh?
There is no change without disruption, and in this case, it is beyond a butterfly's flapping. Such change needs to be implemented carefully.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm just going by your very own words, pedo.
you feel that if an 8 year old boy on your property agrees to some pedo assfuckery for $3 worth of candy, that's no one's business but yours (and of course the kid whose ass you are plowing).